Best Player of the Past Four Decades

[Minty Fresh]

This past week, the folks on Baseball This Morning (XM-175, MLB Home Plate) set up an NCAA Men's Baseketball-style bracket in which they ranked 16 players from each decade (1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's) and pitted them against each other in an effort to come up with "the best player of the past four decades." 

I asked for (and received) a copy of the bracket - complete with the results of the findings on XM.  Essentially, over the course of the entire week, the callers and/or e-mailers got to vote on each particular matchup and the hosts advanced the players based upon the votes of fans.  For example, if you called into the show with a question about your favorite team, they would allow you to ask the question and then they would select a matchup for you and allow you to pick the player who advanced.  The hosts only allowed themselves three vetoes over the course of the entire bracket up to the final four in which the callers made it a "best of five" vote to select the winner.

I thought it might be fun to see if everyone here in the forum would like to participate in the same thing to see how close we come to the results on Baseball This Morning.  Any interest?

I could host it, select posters to research the players and pick the winner of each matchup.  I could also select two posters to serve as "moderators" and those "moderators" could have veto power (I have two in mind if they're willing to serve as moderators).  If I can get at least ten folks willing to participate, I'd be happy to host it.

Let me know if you're in and well set some ground rules.

I'll try to attach the bracket I made from the results they sent me.

[DPMOmaha]

Canseco all the way.  Actually, I think you could make the argument he's had more impact on the game than anyone else with the fact nearly all the allegations he made turned out to be true and the drug testing reform it led to since it's publication.

[Minty Fresh]

And certainly those things can be taken into account.  If you feel that "best' is defined by what he did on and off the field as well as how he impacted the game, that could be part of the vote.

[blue911]

Super Joe Charboneau! The guy could open a beer bottle with his eye socket.

[Mathguy]

I'm a sucker for anything like this.  But I find some questionable matchups.

[Nat of the Living Dead]

I'll help out in between diaper changes and burpings.

[HalfSmokes]

1 number 1 seed banned for line, another about to go to jail for juicing

[Minty Fresh]

1 number 1 seed banned for line, another about to go to jail for juicing

The criteria used to determine seeding was onfield play.  The hosts tried to keep off the field stuff out of the discussion as best as they could, but understood when fans had a gripe. And if they could back up their claims with statistical comparisons, on-field achievements, embassadorship to the game, and a general "fame" of the player, they wouldn't veto a fan's selection.

If you get the Rose or Bonds matchup, feel free to state why they should be ousted and (more importantly) why their opponent is more worthy of moving on, then that's your prerogative.

[Minty Fresh]

I'm a sucker for anything like this.  But I find some questionable matchups.

Bear in mind that there are players who bridged decades, but they tried to lump them into the decades where they meant more to the game (like Ripken, for example).

I take it you mean you have less of a problem with matchups as you do with the seeding?

[Minty Fresh]

I'll help out in between diaper changes and burpings.

Thanks! 

That's one.

[HalfSmokes]

The criteria used to determine seeding was onfield play.  The hosts tried to keep off the field stuff out of the discussion as best as they could, but understood when fans had a gripe. And if they could back up their claims with statistical comparisons, on-field achievements, embassadorship to the game, and a general "fame" of the player, they wouldn't veto a fan's selection.

If you get the Rose or Bonds matchup, feel free to state why they should be ousted and (more importantly) why their opponent is more worthy of moving on, then that's your prerogative.

they are the two best on the field players of the last 40 years, I just find it funny that the two biggest stars will never get into cooperstown

[Minty Fresh]

they are the two best on the field players of the last 40 years

I'd think that's an arguable point and kinda the reason I thought this would be intriguing to do.

[UMDNats]

no pete orr makes this list a joke

[NatsAddict]

I didn't see Mattingly in the 1980's.  I would have seeded him pretty high in that bracket.

[Minty Fresh]

I didn't see Mattingly in the 1980's.  I would have seeded him pretty high in that bracket.

Again, I didn't make the list, I'm borrowing it from XM because I liked the idea.  If we can get a consensus on Mattingly, I'd be happy to place him in a given seed # and move everyone down accordingly.

I personally grew up a Mattingly fan but he was only really good for about a three year span and the rest of his career is just pretty good.  Not sure that would qualify him for removing another name on the 1980's list.

[ronnynat]

No pitchers, huh? I like that Manny-Miguel Cabrera matchup.

[Minty Fresh]

No pitchers, huh? I like that Manny-Miguel Cabrera matchup.

I think the goal was position players.  I think they plan on doing the same type of thing for pitchers soon.

[CALSGR8]

HMM, well you know who I vote for!   

Is this round by round or the whole thing at once?  Round 1.

Pete vs Yaz
Bench vs Foster
Stargel vs McCovey
Carew vs Morgan

Pujols vs I-Rod
Vlad vs. Ichiro
Manny vs Ortiz
Helton vs. Beltran

Schmidt vs Carter
Yount vs Murray
Gwynn vs Dawson
Smith vs Puckett

Biggio vs Palmeiro
CAL vs Walker
Martinez vs. Sheffield
Piazza vs Griffey

[tomterp]

I'm still pissed that a caller picked Ripken over Bonds for the 1990's.  80's, okay, but for most the 90's Ripken was nowhere near the player he used to be, while Bonds is the best player since Ruth, and was in his prime.  The announcers failed to exercise their veto out of an abundance of cowardice.

[Minty Fresh]

I'm still pissed that a caller picked Ripken over Bonds for the 1990's.  80's, okay, but for most the 90's Ripken was nowhere near the player he used to be, while Bonds is the best player since Ruth, and was in his prime.  The announcers failed to exercise their veto out of an abundance of cowardice.

I dunno if it was cowardice as much as they had used their vetoes already.

[Nat of the Living Dead]

The announcers failed to exercise their veto out of an abundance of cowardice.

I think more out of the good of the game. Bonds is a piece of crap and should be remembered in only those terms.

[cmdterps44]

Hell yea for Sheffield with an 11 seed!!

Was my favorite growing up.

[CALSGR8]

I think more out of the good of the game. Bonds is a piece of crap and should be remembered in only those terms.

THIS!

[NatsAddict]

My final four would be Yaz, Gwynn, Bonds (holding nose), and Pujols.

[blue911]

Reggie Jackson
George Brett
Ken Griffey Jr.
Albert Pujols
 

Hanley Ramirez for the next decade.